A federal judge has rejected an appeal by the Trump administration to terminate a consent order in a 2022 case involving alleged redlining by a New Jersey bank.

It marks a win for a group of nonprofits that had fought against the administration’s attempts to overturn the agreement between the Biden-era Justice Department and Lakeland Bank, which was acquired by Provident Bank in 2024.

As part of the 2022 consent order, Lakeland agreed to invest $12 million in home loan subsidies for residents of predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the Newark area. It also agreed to put $750,000 toward advertising, outreach and consumer education, as well as $400,000 toward community partnerships aimed at increasing access to mortgage credit.

The Justice Department, led by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland, alleged that Lakeland had violated the Fair Housing Act by engaging in discriminatory lending policies on the basis of race, color and national origin, a practice known as redlining. The bank neither admitted to nor denied the claims as part of the agreement.

In May 2025, the Trump administration requested early termination of the consent order and dismissal of the case, arguing that Lakeland had “demonstrated a commitment to remediation” and had “reached substantial compliance with the monetary and injunctive terms of the consent order.”

The motion followed an April 2025 executive order signed by President Donald Trump that directed government departments and federal agencies to “deprioritize enforcement of all statutes and regulations to the extent they include disparate-impact liability.” Disparate impact discrimination refers to a seemingly neutral policy or action that results in disproportionate and unjustified negative harm to a group, regardless of intent.

In her opinion and order issued Friday, U.S. District Judge Claire Cecchi rejected government arguments that Lakeland has “substantially complied with the consent order.” (The opinion refers to the defendant as Lakeland throughout, despite its subsequent acquisition by Provident Bank.)

Cecchi pointed out that the bank has only disbursed 65% of its loan subsidy fund to date. She also noted that by keeping the consent order intact, it ensures that the bank maintain two branches opened in the Newark area as part of the agreement at least through September 2027, when the order expires.

The federal judge also rejected arguments from the defendant in favor of termination, writing that “Lakeland provides no concrete evidence in support of its view of the costs and benefits of early termination.”

Provident Bank did not immediately respond to Scotsman Guide’s request for comment.

The National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) was among the nonprofit groups that had filed a joint amicus brief in the case, arguing that the consent order should remain in place. Its special counsel for civil rights, Sasha Samberg-Champion, expressed gratitude that “a court again stood firmly in support of civil rights principles.”

“This decision, like the others we have won, sends a powerful message that commitments to combat housing discrimination cannot be abandoned on a political whim,” Samberg-Champion said in a statement.

Eli Segal of Stapleton Segal Cochran, a law firm that partnered with the Public Interest Law Center to represent the nonprofit groups in the matter, was also pleased with the ruling.

“Communities of color have been deprived of their civil rights for too long,” Segal stated in a press release. “The court’s decision makes clear that the efforts to remedy those wrongs must be continued.”​​